Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

It's like watching the NFL and getting hyped when a referee throws a penalty flag.

  1. It's entirely subjective (the ref can do whatever he wants, so long as the other refs agree).
  2. You had no influence in the decision.
  3. No influence in the outcome.
  4. Both teams are owned by the same people.
  5. And finally, this is all over a game which was made up, and is in the hands of other people.

And yet, you still get pissed off about the outcome. Why?

Power doesn't come from political theater. You are doing exactly as you are being told: "get upset over a symptom, ignore the disease".

It's like watching the NFL and getting hyped when a referee throws a penalty flag. 1. It's entirely subjective (the ref can do whatever he wants, so long as the other refs agree). 1. You had no influence in the decision. 1. No influence in the outcome. 1. Both teams are owned by the same people. 1. And finally, this is all over a game which was made up, and is in the hands of other people. And yet, you still get pissed off about the outcome. Why? Power doesn't come from political theater. You are doing exactly as you are being told: "get upset over a symptom, ignore the disease".

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (35).
[–] • 4 pts

Because it's a way to work up the collective discourse into the topic you laid forth in your title. If you don't "care" about elections, but know the points of the title then how are you going to ever bring about any sort of unifying and collective consciousness among the people with ho you care about and agree with? It's far too big of a leap to ignore elections and go straight to those points. It's too shocking to break the conditioning. Just as conditioning takes years, decades, centuries so does breaking the conditioning.

[–] [deleted] • 8 pts

I agree with your point. My problem is that the endless squabbling over "muh elections" is exactly what ((( they ))) want you to do. No one is focusing on real major red pills. The election crap is all "Red v Blue" nonesense. Even if you point out blatant election fraud, you're not going to convince a democrat unless you show republicans rigging, and vice versa.

As an example, 9/11 is a better red pill, because there is very little "Red v Blue" involved. Instead, it is "Proles v Elites" and people were killed for it. Easy to prove government involvement, and leads into useful topics like war profiteering, revisionist history, etc. etc.

Plus, most faggots on poal won't shut the fuck up about "muh democrats are ev111lllll". They are so profoundly retarded that they actually believe there is ANY functional difference between the Red coats and the Blue coats.

All it is doing is wasting peoples time and spinning them off on meaningless topics.

[–] • 0 pt

Sure but the obvious result of what you and I both know would be (((illegal))) per (((18 USC § 373))) so the long, slow, seemingly counter-to-goals method we have is all that can currently be done. A breaking point needs to happen, I agree. This is the method.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

This type of thing gets people mad at each other, not the elite. The breaking point will be civil unrest which is channeled towards self-destruction. It will not lead to a "revolution" against the elites.